Potentially copyrighted passage
By consulting this text, you confirm that you may use it for personal and educational purposes. Do not reproduce its content. If the book helps you, buy it to support the author or rights holders.
Aristotle
Rhetoric Section 10
Section 789 of 882
Canonical reference 3.17.10
Ancient Greek
τὸ δὲ δημηγορεῖν χαλεπώτερον τοῦ δικάζεσθαι, εἰκότως, διότι περὶ τὸ μέλλον, ἐκεῖ δὲ περὶ τὸ γεγονός, ὃ ἐπιστητὸν ἤδη καὶ τοῖς μάντεσιν, ὡς ἔφη Ἐπιμενίδης ὁ Κρής (ἐκεῖνος γὰρ περὶ τῶν ἐσομένων οὐκ ἐμαντεύετο, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν γεγονότων μὲν ἀδήλων δέ), καὶ ὁ νόμος ὑπόθεσις ἐν τοῖς δικανικοῖς· ἔχοντα δὲ ἀρχὴν ῥᾷον εὑρεῖν ἀπόδειξιν. καὶ οὐκ ἔχει πολλὰς διατριβάς, οἷον πρὸς ἀντίδικον ἢ περὶ αὑτοῦ, ἢ παθητικὸν ποιεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἥκιστα πάντων, ἐὰν μὴ ἐξιστῇ. δεῖ οὖν ἀποροῦντα τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὅπερ οἱ Ἀθήνησι ῥήτορες ποιοῦσι καὶ Ἰσοκράτης· καὶ γὰρ συμβουλεύων κατηγορεῖ, οἷον Λακεδαιμονίων μὲν ἐν τῷ πανηγυρικῷ, Χάρητος δʼ ἐν τῷ συμμαχικῷ.
English
J. H. Freese, 1926
Deliberative speaking is more difficult than forensic, and naturally so, because it has to do with the future; whereas forensic speaking has to do with the past, which is already known, even by diviners, as Epimenides the Cretan said; for he used to divine, not the future, but only things that were past but obscure. Further, the law is the subject in forensic speaking; and when one has a starting-point, it is easier to find a demonstrative proof. Deliberative speaking does not allow many opportunities for lingering - for instance, attacks on the adversary, remarks about oneself, or attempts to arouse emotion. In this branch of Rhetoric there is less room for these than in any other, unless the speaker wanders from the subject. Therefore, when at a loss for topics, one must do as the orators at Athens , amongst them Isocrates, for even when deliberating, he brings accusations against the Lacedaemonians, for instance, in the Panegyricus , and against Chares in the Symmachikos (On the Peace).
French AI-generated translation, non-official
Codex gpt-5.6-sol · Non-official working translation · 2026-09-13
L'éloquence délibérative est plus difficile que l'éloquence judiciaire, et cela naturellement, parce qu'elle porte sur l'avenir, tandis que l'éloquence judiciaire porte sur le passé, qui est déjà connu, même des devins, comme le disait Épiménide le Crétois. Celui-ci ne prédisait pas l'avenir, mais seulement des choses passées et obscures. En outre, la loi est le sujet de l'éloquence judiciaire et, quand on dispose d'un point de départ, il est plus facile de trouver une preuve démonstrative. L'éloquence délibérative ne donne guère l'occasion de s'attarder, par exemple en attaquant l'adversaire, en parlant de soi-même ou en cherchant à susciter l'émotion. Cette branche de la rhétorique laisse moins de place à de tels procédés que toute autre, à moins que l'orateur ne s'écarte du sujet. Aussi, lorsqu'on manque de lieux, faut-il imiter les orateurs d'Athènes, parmi lesquels Isocrate : même lorsqu'il délibère, il porte des accusations contre les Lacédémoniens, par exemple dans le Panégyrique, et contre Charès dans le Symmachique (Sur la paix).
Concepts in this passage
Anger
View detailed page
Filter the library
Aporia
View detailed page
Filter the library
Fear
View detailed page
Filter the library
Justice
View detailed page
Filter the library
Law
View detailed page
Filter the library
Messiah
View detailed page
Filter the library
Mindfulness
View detailed page
Filter the library
Nature
View detailed page
Filter the library
Peace
View detailed page
Filter the library
Reason
View detailed page
Filter the library
Rhetoric
View detailed page
Filter the library